I just wanted to enlighten some people here since it appears to be common concensus that reviewers are getting harsher in this new gen.

This is not the case.

It's really simply really.

Games later in the gen will be of a much higher quality both gameplay-wise as they incorporate the new technologies, and graphically as development techniques improve.

Example: It would be a mistake to give a game like titanfall a 10/10 when titanfall 3 will be several times better than the first.

This is because reviewers are giving scores based on "potential".

Which is inconsistent because scores should be given based on current competition and availability. A score should tell you how well the developers made a game....just like an olympic score. Is the game well made? Fun? Then it should score high. Just because a game in the future may be better does not mean a previous game should score worse...but this is how reviewers are currently scoring games.

You're welcome.

I already figured that.

Then you're smart

So they haven't always been doing this?

I dont think ive ever agreed with you......And that is still the case

Super Mario 3d World's metacritic score would like to say a word for these kind of thoughts.

Or... maybe they're just rating things appropriately... Games have not really evolved much from next gen, and the scores are in line with last gen scores.

The issue is some reviewers do this and some dont. There is no consistency and that's the problem, I understand how diff people enjoy diff games but don't score a game a 10/10 when there are issues with it that you have dinged other titles on It seems biased and u professional

Yay! Even if it isn't true, It's still nice!